Extract from UK parliamentary note re: F-35 acquisition by UK

“Trevor Taylor, in exploring the financial risks of the F-35 programme to the UK, has suggested that the UK has little choice but to stay with the programme as any withdrawal by the British would be a “massive vote of no confidence in the programme” and could precipitate a “significant crisis in US-UK relations in general.” Not installing catapults on the Carriers has also locked the UK in to the F-35B as it is the only combat aircraft type in the world that “can be operated from such ships.” Mr Taylor points out that the UK does not know the precise capabilities of the F-35s it will eventually possess, when they will be delivered and how much they will cost. He raises the possibility the US could, under financial pressure, cancel the F-35B, leaving the UK in “a very difficult position.”

So 12 years on involvement with JSF has resulted in UK not knowing what it will get, not knowing what it will cost, not knowing when it will get it and not knowing whether its only carrier aircraft option is certain to be built. Brilliant!

Link to note in PDF format at bottom of this page:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/144253/house-of-commons-issued-note-on-f_35.html

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter battles for future

PS The link does not work if you are in the UK.

They said that they had a solution designed , and would be implementing and testing it in 2013.

I recall reading reports of the amended tailhook being tested successfully (albeit not on a carrier). If it works on the ground what could stop it working on a carrier? Tests just to confim before putting it into production and amending any tailhhooks already installed?

Finmeccanica company Selex ES is on track to form a joint venture with AEL Sistemas to collaborate on support and development of airborne radar technologies in Brazil.

The two sides signed a memorandum of understanding Wednesday at the LAAD defense and security show here. They said the move reflected the progress they are making toward formation of a joint venture aimed at tackling Brazilian and regional radar markets.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130411/DEFREG02/304110010/Selex-AEL-Partnering-Airborne-Radar-Technologies-Brazil

Not unhelpful to Gripen’s chances of finding a Brazilian partner for local radar production of its AESA radar, should that need arise at some point.

In the next decade the top of the line Western Fighters will be the Typhoon, Rafale, Raptor, and Lighting. So, how would NATO (for example) employ it’s mix of 4.5 and 5th Generation Fighters as a coherent force.

I do not see a confrontation with Russia or China. Apart from those two…

Against defended enemy air space: cruise missiles + F-35 penetration with precision munitions + Raffy, Tiffy penetration with precision munitions (if not considered too risky) or stand off munitions delivered by Raffy, Tiffy to neutralise air defences + Raptor to counter enemy fighters + Raffy, Tiffy to counter enemy fighters (if/when existing ground-based missile defences not considered too risky for Raffy, Tiffy)

Against undefended airspace: any of the strike aircraft would do for strike; any of the aircraft would do for recce/maintenance of total air superiority

Mike Gibbons, Boeing’s vice-president for the F/A-18 and EA-18G programmes:

But industry is also investing in other improvements to the aircraft that are not going to be demonstrated during the flights tests later this year. The most significant of those developments are General Electric’s enhanced F414 engines. In previous years, GE had touted versions of the F414 with either greater thrust or greater durability, but current developments are focused on combining both of these, Gibbons says.

“Significantly more thrust, which provides great acceleration improvements,” Gibbons says. “In fact when accelerating from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.4 – it takes, at various altitudes, a third of the time than it currently takes with that enhanced engine,” he says. “Huge performance improvement.”

But the same enhanced engine could be software modified to provide the same amount of power as the current F414 variants but with much greater durability and fuel economy.

Boeing’s analysis shows that the USN could save $5 billion with the improved engines installed over the life of the Super Hornet fleet, Gibbons says.

Would be good for Gripen E operating costs if GE improved F414 fuel economy. It would give it an even greater operating cost advantage over the heavier twins and F-35.

It is difficult to imagine that Holland will pick a different jet.

As demonstrated in a previous posting, a SH package will most likely be only marginally cheaper.

Gripen NG will be somewhat cheaper, but even a complete Gripen NG package does not come cheaply (3.3 billion USD for 22 Gripen E to Switzerland). Also, as a close US ally and NATO country the threshold for buying non-US fighters is VERY high.

Thus if they really want to save money they should buy new F-16 instead — then they can keep existing infrastructure. They would save a lot of money that way.

Otherwise, I don’t see an alternative to the F-35. Since it seems F-16 is not on the table, most likely the F-35 will “win” this “competition” just like it “won” in Norway and will “win” in Canada.

Perhaps the politicians don’t realize this yet but once the air force and the MoD explain all this to them, the outcome is a given.

Politicians can be very dumb:

(a) they can see their role as providing a spectrum of services apart from defence to their citizens
(b) they can see the ability to join in first day air strike operations as of little importance
(c) they can fail to see that buying non-US kit is foolish if you are a member of NATO